why can't we have a relationship with other men?

[Agnostic75]

Do you know how futile it is to guess (always in your favor I might add) at another's motivations? I am not getting placed on the event horizon of ineffective responses to my claims here again but I can assure you that my motivations are 100% the exact opposite of what you wish them to be. Since I am the greatest human expert in history on my motivations you would be wise to accept it and since I have taken every single challenge you have given me regardless of them being repeated and your being periodically inexhaustible you would be a fool to deny it. I only refuse the lack of a challenge and my greatest desire is to be challenged. It just could not be achieved to any extent on this issue in my sincere opinion. You are free to believe as you wish despite this, as apparently you are well aware.

This has gotten comical since you keep making posts, but refused to reply to my post #2094. Your claim that I have not made effective responses to your arguments is patently false, as my post #2094 proves.

You are not making any sense. Your two main premises are as follows:

Here is the conclusion I promised at the end of answering all remaining points at this time.

1. Homosexuality produces massive increases in suffering, death, and cost.

2. It has no justification what so ever that compensates for its cost.

Item 1 is an obvious, and deceptive straw man argument since I have never claimed otherwise. Homosexuality does cause a lot of problems, rather "some" homosexuality causes a lot of problems, but the main issue by far is what should be done about it. You have never adequately discussed that. You have claimed on numerous occasions that it is not up to you to provide solutions, but on numerous other occasions, you have proposed abstinence as a solution, and on at least one occasion in another thread, you recommended reparative therapy as a solution.

Logically, from a secular moral perspective, no action is wrong unless there are adequate solutions. Few people would criticize cigarette smoking without offering any solutions for it.

You claimed that there are successful reparative clinics all over the world, when the truth is that the founder, and past president of the recently disbanded reparative therapy clinic Exodus International, which was the largest reparative clinic of its kind in the world by far, admitted that he lied when he said that he changed his sexual identity, and that over 99.9% of homosexuals who came to his organization for help failed to change their sexual identity.

Item 2 is so absurd that it is amazing that you were willing to embarrass yourself that much. Quite obviously, lesbianism, rather safe lesbianism, is justified because lesbians have far less risks of getting STDs than gay men do, and even have less risks than heterosexual men, and women do. Did you know that? If so, why did you make the utterly absurd claim that lesbians should practice abstinence?

Anyone who has just a little common sense knows that there is not any need for homosexual couples who have been monogamous for at least five years to practice abstinence, and even moreso regarding those who have been monogamous for over ten years.

On a number of occasions, I have provided you with evidence that having sex provides significant health benefits, and that abstinence has serious health risks. As far as I recall, you never commented on any of it. I quoted parts of a long article at http://www.psyplexus.com/ellis/83.htm that discusses the risks of long term abstinence. In addition, I quoted two articles that show that having sex has proven health benefits.

It would obviously be absurd for lesbians who practice safe sex to practice abstinence, and risk needing medical treatment from the effects of long term abstinence. The same goes for gay couples who have been monogamous for at least five years, and especially those who have been monogamous for at least ten years.

Some people have practiced abstinence for life, but accurate statistics on that are impossible to get, partly because of potential lying.

There are not any doubts whatsoever that the desire to have sex is typically very strong in most humans, and that there is not any reasonable evidence that even 1% of humans have practiced abstinence for life, or for decades, or have any interest at all in doing so.

My arguments are even better regarding homosexuals who live in countries that have far lower HIV/AIDS rates than the U.S. does.

I would agree that homosexuals who get HIV, or AIDS by having unsafe sex should practice abstinence if they are not going to have safe sex, but I would not agree regarding lesbians who practice safe sex, and for monogamous gays couples who have been monogamous for at least five years.

Surely every major medical association would agree with my claims about abstinence, and would disagree with your claims about abstinence, but yet you somehow believe that you have won these debates. That is ok, the vast majority of experts are on my side, not to mention many millions of people around the world, including many Christians, and many Republicans.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Item 2 is so absurd that it is amazing that you were willing to embarrass yourself that much. Quite obviously, lesbianism, rather safe lesbianism, is justified because lesbians have far less risks of getting STDs than gay men do, and even have less risks than heterosexual men, and women do. Did you know that? If so, why did you make the utterly absurd claim that lesbians should practice abstinence?

Good question. Of course it utterly destroys 1robin's argument.

I asked him about it earlier in the thread but got no response.

 

[1robin]

Good question. Of course it utterly destroys 1robin's argument.

I asked him about it earlier in the thread but got no response.

Not only is that response garbage but what you responded to is complete crap. I must have responded to the same ineffective, meaningless, pathetic equivocation several dozen times and in all it's forms a hundred. It was the living embodiment of the exact impotence that made me give up on this thread.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Not only is that response garbage but what you responded to is complete crap. I must have responded to the same ineffective, meaningless, pathetic equivocation several dozen times and in all it's forms a hundred.

I hear that you still refuse to answer it. As I expected.

It's a simple question: IS LESBIANISM OK (MORAL) SINCE LESBIANS HAVE EVEN FEWER MEDICAL PROBLEMS THAN MARRIED HETEROSEXUALS?

Simple question. I think you should try and answer it.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Is in interesting that all that you now do is boast that you have adequately refuted my arguments without actually discussing my most recent arguments. That is a very odd way for someone to think that they have won a debate. Instead of claiming that you have won, why don't you show that you have won by trying to refute my most recent reply to you? That is the way that discussions happen. People specifically reply to posts, not merely state that they have won a debate.

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: Is in interesting that all that you now do is boast that you have adequately refuted my arguments without actually discussing my most recent arguments. That is a very odd way for someone to think that they have won a debate. Instead of claiming that you have won, why don't you show that you have won by trying to refute my most recent reply to you? That is the way that discussions happen. People specifically reply to posts, not merely state that they have won a debate.

It is more remarkable that I have to do so to counter your doing so originally and that you think I am going to give in and debate this issue again. The only reason I wound up in this thread again is an accident. I did not read the title but simply clicked the thread I saw had a response in it. The post was not specifically on homosexuality and only later did I notice I was in this horrible thread again. If I engage anyone I feel the necessity to not end a discussion without a reason. I had to back out of here again and reply to any non-homosexual claim along the way. My arguments BTW are not why you had no case. I did not invent either claim. It is not my intelligence nor yours that caused this lopsided debate. It is simply trying to defend what can't be. I am not smart because I can defend my own reality, it has no counter claim available. Now that I feel satisfied I have concluded the discussion as admirably as can be I am out.

 

[Agnostic75]

My arguments BTW are not why you had no case. I did not invent either claim.

The is comical, you state two claims, and somehow think that they means that you have won the debate. Here are your two claims:

1. Homosexuality produces massive increases in suffering, death, and cost.

2. It has no justification what so ever that compensates for its cost.

Whether you invented that claims or not is completely irrelevant. What is most important is 1) unsafe sex among many homosexuals is a big problem, and 2) what should be done about homosexuality?

Item 1 is obviously true, and few experts say otherwise. Item 2 is where you disagree with me, and all major medical associations, but for some very strange reason, you think that you have won the debate even although all major medical associations disagree with your recommended solution of abstinence for all homosexuals.

 

[Tiberius]

1robin, the simple fact is that everything that causes problems with homosexuality (namely, the increased risk of disease) can be easily controlled. Safe sex in our society is very easy to do.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

1robin, the simple fact is that everything that causes problems with homosexuality (namely, the increased risk of disease) can be easily controlled. Safe sex in our society is very easy to do.

Yeah. A condom can turn homosexuality from immoral to moral, according to 1robin's arguments.

 

[Agnostic75]

My arguments BTW are not why you had no case.

No, the truth is that my arguments are not why you had no case. In other words, your main solution for homosexuality is for all homosexuals to practice abstinence. All major medical organizations reject your claim. So how in the world can I have lost the debate when all major medical organizations disagree with you?

Your two major claims are:

1. Homosexuality produces massive increases in suffering, death, and cost.

2. It has no justification what so ever that compensates for its cost.

Those arguments only apply to homosexuals who have risks that are significant enough to warrant abstinence. You would never dare show up for a nationally televised debate and claim that you are qualified to say that all homosexuals have risks that are significant enough to warrant abstinence. If you did, you would immediately become a national, and international laughing stock, and you would even become unpopular even among millions of Christians, Republicans, and medical professionals.

You have spent a great deal of time in this thread, and in some other threads, discussing homosexuality, even though the health, and financial risks of homosexuality are nowhere near the risks of heart disease, cancer, and obesity. Your post #304 has a number of false quotes from Christian websites. It was wrong of you not to retract that post since some naïve, and easily led people could be influenced by it. I asked you several times to discuss that post, but you refused to discuss it. In that post, you said I will not comment further on this it has made me sick.

In your post #304, you said:

I have never seen more lude and grotesque displays than at a gay parade. Many are not contempt to quietly practice it they wish to rebelliously flaunt it and do so in disgusting ways. Since there are over 3 million sites that contain the problems of homosexuality I can't fathom why the question was asked.

Who are you to claim that gay parades are immoral? At any rate, only a small percentage of gay people participate in gay parades.

When I originally brought up those other health issues, you said that two wrongs do not make a right, and that homosexuality is still harmful. Actually, it is not homosexuality that is harmful, it is unsafe sex that is harmful. As a whole, homosexuals have unsafe sex more than heterosexuals do, actually gay men, not lesbians, but homosexuals who practice safe sex are not responsible for the actions of those who practice unsafe sex.

It is outrageous that you have often used the word "risks" since heterosexuals' greatest risk by far is themselves, certainly not homosexuals, as evidenced by epidemic levels of heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. In 2010 about 40 times more, or 4,000% more Americans died from heart disease alone than from AIDS. Some experts have predicted that by 2030, which will be 16 years from now, 50% of Americans will be obese, which would add over 500 billion dollars to health care costs.

Heart disease, cancer, and diabetes are often preventable, especially heart disease, and obesity.

You have spoken disparagingly about homosexuality, and homosexuals, but do you feel the same way about people who have preventable cases of heart disease, cancer, and obesity? What would motivate a person to spend so much time, and energy attacking a practice that is far less harmful than heart disease, cancer, and diabetes? If you are actually trying to promote good health, your time would be much better spent discussing ways to prevent, and treat heart disease, cancer, and diabetes than discussing homosexuality. That has to be true since as a practical matter, very few people would agree with your claim that all homosexuals should practice abstinence, but many people would agree with your claims about preventing, and treating heart disease, cancer, and diabetes if you had conducted proper research. So if you want to be more useful, please change your attitude, and spend your time more wisely.

You most certainly have never provided any reasonable evidence that all lesbians should practice abstinence.

 

[columbus]

1robin, the simple fact is that everything that causes problems with homosexuality (namely, the increased risk of disease) can be easily controlled. Safe sex in our society is very easy to do.

I consider myself a solid prolifer. As such I see a ton more damage done by irresponsible heterosex than any homosex. Millions of children are born to bad parents or simply killed before they are born. At least gay people are only putting themselves at risk and a small risk at that, with easy precautions.

Tom

 

[Tiberius]

Yeah. A condom can turn homosexuality from immoral to moral, according to 1robin's arguments.

And I wonder if 1robin has a problem with a guy having anal sex with his girlfriend.

 

[1robin]

And I wonder if 1robin has a problem with a guy having anal sex with his girlfriend.

Am I the bar which all arguments must pass? I hope not since I took my bar and went home.

 

[Tiberius]

Am I the bar which all arguments must pass? I hope not since I took my bar and went home.

No, you just keep the thread lively.

 

[DragonHawk1959]

How does god differentiate? The Christian creation myth uses the same words for God's creation of both. And he breathed into them and they became a living soul.

 

[One God]

I don't mean like doing orgies and wicked stuff like that. But why can't we make love to people of our gender. I don't get it. I am attracted to men.

If you can have natural re-production from having same gender sex, then why not?
Anything that is against nature, is a caution enough for me as a NO NO. Stay blessed !!!

 

[Sir Doom]

If you can have natural re-production from having same gender sex, then why not?
Anything that is against nature, is a caution enough for me as a NO NO. Stay blessed !!!

Do you mean like shaving or wearing clothes or brushing your teeth or driving a car or using a computer? Those unnatural things?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

If you can have natural re-production from having same gender sex, then why not?
Anything that is against nature, is a caution enough for me as a NO NO. Stay blessed !!!

If it exists in nature, then it's natural. Homosexuality exists in nature, ergo...

 

[One God]

Do you mean like shaving or wearing clothes or brushing your teeth or driving a car or using a computer? Those unnatural things?

One of natural rules are re-production. That can be done by opposite sex coming toagther for re-production. If there is another NATURAL way around it, then hands down it is fine. I am open to accept and move on.

Shaving, wearing cloths, brushing your teeth, driving a car or using computer and etc etc etc, has nothing to do with being natural or not. If you shave/wear cloths for your happiness then why not? and if you drive car or use computers for your conveyance, then again why not. Question is do you benefit yourself and others and/or do you harm yourself/other by doing so???

Looking around, we see how one tree seed turns to be a tree in the future, and the cycle goes on. One must look around and see how things relate.

 

[One God]

If it exists in nature, then it's natural. Homosexuality exists in nature, ergo...

ERGO (Didn't get it)
Interesting. Any source???